If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Remember the brutal murder of seven-year-old Danielle van Dam in San Diego? She was snatched out of her house while her parents were smoking pot and her father was fooling around with one of his wife's friends (the couple had a self-admitted "open marriage"). Anyway, little Danielle was brutally raped and murdered and buried in a desert.

From the mega-bestselling author of The O'Reilly Factor and The No Spin Zone, a no-holds-barred exposé of the people and institutions who are letting Americans down – and what we should do about it.
(Edited to say "No Clue Zone!")

The book is a vanity publication written by an "unknown" author. Notice there is no identification of the writer. Probably written by one of the posters who posts daily at the local San Diego paper.

Littleone48
09-22-2012, 01:26 PM
The book is a vanity publication written by an "unknown" author. Notice there is no identification of the writer. Probably written by one of the posters who posts daily at the local San Diego paper.

Yes the book was written by one of the UT's daily posters with the help of several other people including Westerfield's ex BIL who to this day maintains that Westerfield is innocent.

I have the full PDF of the appeal and I will figure out how to link it here.

Comment

by Frisina Tue Mar 12 2002 at 22:40:39
Another innocent victim of the heinous crimes against humanity that are committed far too often. Danielle was a 7 year old girl from San Diego, CA who was abducted from her family's home late in February 2002, and turned up some two weeks later along side a road miles from her home. Her blood was found on the clothing of, and in the residence of David Westerfield, who is currently being held under the accusations of (1) possession of child pornography (2) kidnapping and (3) murder. Mr. Westerfield pleaded not guilty to all three charges.

Danielle's case struck me like none other. I woke up one morning to the news on CNN, fully expecting another wave of infromation on the War on Terrorism, but instead was mauled by the news that this innocent child has been kidnapped. The pictures flashed on the screen aroused emotions in me that seldom see the light of day. I felt torn in half. I prayed for this little girl - that she be returned safely to her parents.

When I heard the news that her body was found, and was in such a state of decomposition that the only way to identify her was with dental records, I felt all hope escape my body - all hope I ever harbored for humanity. I wanted to cry. I did cry. I cried for this little girl, and all the other senseless acts against the human race, by the human race. My sorrow turned to rage, and when I saw that bastard David Westerfield in the courtroom, safe behind his bulletproof glass encasement, pleading not-guilty, I wanted to kill. I felt the urge to willingly take the life of that cold, unworthy, waste of human potential.

I am in hope that the civil libertarians won't save that horrible man from the fate of which he is so deserving. He does not deserve life, and he does not deserve death. Danielle deserves life. Bring Danielle back to us. It is simply not fair. (Note: As a response to some people here who think I am implying that Westerfield's death will bring back Danielle, that is NOT what I am saying. There is no justice in this case. There can be none. How can any justice be served? If anyone has any bright ideas, let me know.)

Danielle wasn’t abducted late in February 2002, but at the beginning, as can be seen from the timeline at the bottom of that post.

Her body didn’t turn up some two weeks later, but almost four weeks, again as can be seen from the timeline.

Her blood wasn’t found in Westerfield’s residence: one drop was said to have been found in his motor home (it wasn’t properly documented), again as can be seen from the timeline. Also, there was one small stain which was said to be on his jacket at the dry-cleaners (it wasn’t seen by the dry-cleaners).

He was accused of possessing child pornography, but wasn’t charged under a child porn statute.

Although the trial hadn’t even begun, and Westerfield had pleaded “not guilty”, you wanted to kill him. How can we trust jury verdicts when people are so ready to presume guilt?

Her body wasn’t found in the desert, it was merely a rural area (and wasn’t on his route).

The police had already questioned him extensively on the 4th.

Both of his vehicles (car and motor home) were impounded on the 5th: his car was later returned to him.

I’m not aware of Danielle’s parents being taken to the desert by the police (or anyone else), whether on the 7th or any other day. However, Danielle’s father did go to the desert in the middle of the month, but that was without the police, and in fact was against police advice. (Interestingly, he passed within a short distance of the body dump site, and did so at about the time the body was dumped there if the entomology evidence is correct.)

I’m also not aware of any claims Westerfield had been camping in the desert on the night of her disappearance, in fact that’s contrary to what he said and is not consistent with trial testimony either. But if it were true, then he couldn’t have kidnapped her, as the desert is well over 100 miles away. This is perhaps a reference to the discredited claim by the tow truck driver that he pulled Westerfield’s motor home out of the desert sand on the Saturday (it was actually the Sunday).

He was the prime suspect from the 4th, as evidenced by the fact that the police got a search warrant for his premises that very night, and placed him under 24 hour surveillance at the same time.

Similarly, they had already seized items from his home on the 5th.

He was a collector of adult porn. Among his images were a few that were “questionable”: maybe they were child porn and maybe they weren’t. Some members of law enforcement declared they weren’t, but the judge wouldn’t allow the jury to hear that.

He hasn’t been linked to any other disappearances.

It was closet doors that the police took from Danielle’s room. They did find unknown fingerprints in her home, but once they had determined that these didn’t come from their only suspect, they apparently made no further attempt to identify them (so maybe they came from a known sex offender).

64,000 is the total number of images of all types on his computers, including those images which were part of the Windows operating system and other programs (such as Word and Excel). Nudes comprised about 8,000 to 10,000 of these. 2,200 was the total number of videos (these were apparently all just clips). The number of nude or porn videos wasn’t given. About 85 of the still images, and 39 of the movies, were considered “questionable”. Most of the images were of adult women. The number of teens wasn’t given, but remember that porn featuring 18-year-olds is legal. Even if some were under 18, remember that Danielle was just 7, so that effectively removes porn as the motive for the kidnapping and murder. We weren’t told the number which clearly involved minors, but remember that images of minors, even unclothed minors, are not necessarily porn: pictures of Danielle’s first bath were shown in court, and she was presumably nude at the time, but no one claimed that these were child porn. “Questionable” means that either the images were porn and the girl featured may have been under 18 (or may not have been); or the girl was under 18 and the images may be considered suggestive (or may not be). So this was highly subjective. The images shown in court as evidence of child porn included ones of a teenage girl sunbathing in a bikini, photos which were apparently taken by her mother who denied they were pornographic - they were just ordinary family photos.

What we can conclude from all the above is that none of the images were clearly child porn, otherwise he’d have been arrested on the 5th, he would have been charged under a child porn statute, and no members of law enforcement would have declared the images to not be child porn.

We now know that no evidence was found that Westerfield had ever been in Danielle’s house or at the body dump site, and the entomology (insect) evidence excluded him as did the dog scent evidence. The small amount of evidence of her found in his environment can easily be innocently explained by them being neighbors and having visited him recently. So it is extremely unlikely that he was guilty of the crimes.

You can find confirmation of most of the above facts in the book on the case, Rush to Judgement, also the Wikipedia article on David Westerfield.

Brenda: ...He did buy us drinks, but we weren’t talking to him at all. We didn’t really, didn’t really interact with him that much or socialize with him.

Q YES, MA'AM.
A -- WHERE YOU CAN PUT YOUR DRINK OR YOU CAN JUST LEAN ON IT. AND MR. -- EXCUSE ME. MR. WESTERFIELD AND MRS. VAN DAM WERE DANCING.

Q DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT SHE APPEARED TO BE RUBBING HERSELF ALL OVER HIM?
A YES.

Q THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS, WEREN'T THEY?
A YES.

Q YES. WHAT WAS BRENDA DOING TO DAVID THAT CAUSED YOU TO BELIEVE OR DESCRIBE THAT HER BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTED RUBBING HERSELF ALL OVER HIM?
A JUST SEEING HER DO IT.

Q WHAT PARTS OF HER, IF ANY, --
A ANATOMY?

Q YES. -- OF HER ANATOMY WAS SHE RUBBING AGAINST MR. WESTERFIELD?
A I WOULD HAVE TO SAY HIP BONES AND BOSOM.

Q WERE THEY DANCING TOGETHER WHEN YOU MADE THAT OBSERVATION?
A THEY WERE. THERE WERE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE ON THE DANCE FLOOR.

Q IS THERE A MANNER IN WHICH YOU WOULD CHARACTERIZE THEIR DANCING?
A WELL, IT WAS A MOVIE THEY CALLED -- IT WAS CALLED "DIRTY DANCING," SO I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT. I'M NOT REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY YOUNG PEOPLE DANCE TODAY.

...Dan Conklin: He made a comment that he was familiar with the area, that he knew better to be in here, but he did it anyway, and that to me seems a little strange. He kept asking me if I was sure that I could get him out, and I kept having to reassure him that I could get him out. I eventually did get him out and he didn’t get out of his motorhome. I uh told him I was going to come back and get my wood and get his leveling blocks and I would meet him back on the hard pack road behind us, and when I came over to get the wood and the leveling ramps, I turned around to see him get back onto the hard pack road and head towards the highway and he left.

The following information is POSTED on the AMW website, and has been there for over 2 weeks.....The most recent Television Interview with the VD's contradicts what they told SDPD and AMW just 2 weeks ago!!

The March 2 interview will be the third major revision to the events of the evening of Feb. 1-2, 2002.

..."Delicate questions became pointed yesterday when San Diego radio talk-show host Rick Roberts criticized the van Dams on the air for "not being honest" about "what really occurred" the night their daughter disappeared. Roberts told his listeners that a "reliable" source" high in law enforcement" said the van Dams have engaged in "lots of wife-swapping..."

Saying he believes the source, Roberts reported activity by the van Dams on the night of Feb. 1 dramatically different from their description to the news media.

"The March 2 interview will be the third major revision to the events of the evening of Feb. 1-2, 2002."

Comment

A homicide lieutenant heading up this investigation and crime scene here just came by to brief us a few minutes ago on what is exactly happening out here today. Lieutenant Jim Duncan again using the phrase "high probability" in describing the body found in this location as being that of Danielle Van Dam's.

Right now, we can give you a sense of what's happening out here at the crime scene. The lieutenant telling us that the investigators here are going over the scene with a -- quote -- "fine toothed comb."

Police are operating on the theory that the body was dropped here shortly after the disappearance based on the extent of the decomposition of the body.

He tells us that the body was not wrapped in a blanket or hidden in any way, and he tells us that cadaver dogs are here to recover any remains that are found apart from the body, because it was in the elements for so long.

Evidence technicians are taking plasters of tire tracks that have been found, and in half an hour, a helicopter will land here, and an evidence technician will go up to take aerial photos of the scene.
(Guess the tire tracks excluded Westerfield too!!)

Police will be here on the scene for a number of hours today. The finding of this body, believed to be Danielle Van Dam's, ends a terrible chapter in this community's search for girl. It has effected everybody here, including we found out in our discussion with the lieutenant, the detectives from the homicide bureau, who deal with murder on a daily basis.

Police are trying to determine whether a charred body found today outside San Diego is Danielle van Dam. One official said there is a "high probability" it is the missing 7-year-old.

Officials said two people searching for the missing girl found what appeared to be the burned body of a child in Dehesa, an unincorporated town outside San Diego. The corpse was behind some foliage, near a trail and among scattered rocks next to a golf course.
San Diego police, who are also at the scene, said in a statement that positive identification of the remains would likely take several days.

But Lt. Jim Collins told reporters said that there is a "high probability" that the body is Danielle's.

"It's the body of a small child. Appears to be a female," Collins told reporters at an impromptu press conference.

"There's a high probability it is her," he said. "We have no other reports of missing children of the same description."

http://www.policeone.com/investigati...ielle-van-Dam/
"It is her," said a detective close to the investigation. "It's female, a young girl, the same size as Danielle. The clothing looks like hers, and the body appears to have been out there three to four weeks, which is how long she's been missing

Comment

San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano talks to NEWSWEEK about the latest developments in the Danielle van Dam case

Feb. 28 — The Danielle van Dam case has reached a sad climax. Police tonight confirmed that a body found by volunteers in a trash-strewn area about 25 feet off a well-traveled road east of San Diego was indeed that of the 7-year-old kidnapped from her suburban bedroom three weeks ago.IMG: San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano

“WE HAVE CONFIRMED that in fact it is the body of Danielle van Dam,” San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst said at a press conference on Thursday. The missing girl was identified by her dental records. Due to the decomposed state of the partially-burned body, police said they had not yet determined the cause of her death.

On Tuesday—a day before the body was found—David Westerfield, one of the child’s neighbors, pleaded not guilty to murder with special circumstances, kidnapping and possession of child pornography. The murder charge means he could face the death penalty if he is convicted, but prosecutors say they’ll decide later whether to ask for Westerfield’s execution.

San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Jamie Reno about the investigation shortly before the body was identified. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Where does the investigation currently stand?
David Bejarano: We are continuing to look at all the evidence in this case and are working with the medical examiner to identify the body. When the searchers first notified the Sheriff’s Department that they had discovered a body [on Wednesday], the [department] then immediately contacted us, and we had out people at the scene within a few minutes. Our homicide investigators were there until past midnight last night, at which time we released the body to the medical examiner’s office.

With a body discovered and a suspect in custody, what role do police have at this point in the investigation?
This investigation is far from over, from our standpoint. We’re still following up on approximately 500 tips we have received. Each tip has to be looked at. And we have more than 100 pieces of evidence we have to study. There’s still a lot of police work to be done.

Regarding the evidence, how much blood was found in David Westerfield’s recreational vehicle and on his clothing?
Small traces of blood were found. But that’s about all I can say about the evidence at this time.

In the warrant to search Westerfield’s home, you were looking for very specific things, including child pornography. What led you to believe that Westerfield was in possession of such materials? Did you receive a tip from the van Dams or from someone else that he may have had child porn in his home?
We can’t tell you why we were looking for pornography.

Is it common for police to list pornography on a search warrant in a child abduction case?
Yes, I think it is fair to say that in these kinds of child abduction cases, child pornography is commonly involved.

Have you yet recovered any evidence from the dry cleaners that Westerfield may have used for his bedding and clothing the weekend Danielle disappeared?
Again, we can’t comment on the evidence at this time, I’m sorry.

Why did Westerfield apparently go to the beach before heading to the desert on the weekend of Danielle’s disappearance?
We do believe he went to the Strand State Beach in Coronado first, then headed east to the desert area near Glamis, but we are not currently discussing any possible motives for his actions.
Would you say the location of the body on that road in Dehesa seems to be consistent with Westerfield’s actions and whereabouts that weekend?
That road isn’t a direct route to the desert, but it certainly is an indirect route, a back way.

Do investigators have any idea yet why Westerfield would have committed such a crime? Can you comment at all on the rumors that Westerfield may have been turned down from what was said to be the van Dams’ “swinger” circle, or that he had been shunned by Brenda van Dam in the bar that night?
We’re not discussing motive or rumors.

Is it true that investigators brought this case to the San Diego District Attorney twice and were told to go back and get more evidence?
We can’t comment.
Can you tell me whether Westerfield had his recreational vehicle steam-cleaned and his clothes laundered after he returned from the desert?
We can’t comment.

How about other aspects of the investigation, including all the materials removed from Westerfield’s house?
We can’t comment.
How helpful were Westerfield’s cell phone records in this investigation?
In any investigation of this magnitude, cell phones are checked. It’s a very common and effective tool these days to see who he was calling and from where he was calling.

Can you describe how this investigation was mapped out by police from the beginning?
I can’t describe too many details because the investigation isn’t over, but I will say that in my 23 years in law enforcement, I have rarely seen anything like this investigation. It’s not unprecedented for police to have a 24-hour surveillance of a suspect. But it is very rare for police to have a 24-hour surveillance on a suspect for three straight weeks. Typically, in a long-term investigation, there are breaks along the way. There are days on and days off, as far as surveillance. This is one of the longest and largest continuing investigations I have been a part of, and it isn’t over yet.

Comment

Is it true that investigators brought this case to the San Diego District Attorney twice and were told to go back and get more evidence?
We can’t comment.
(Soriano: Damn, I've visually examined the jacket twice, but I'll take one more look tomorrow to see if any evidence has appeared since yesterday.

LeAlcala: Damn, I've visually examined the motor home twice, but I'll take one more look tomorrow to see if any evidence has appeared since yesterday. Got any hints or areas you're interested in where I should look on Friday?)

Comment

Eagle eye Dorie:
Q. Did you examine the underwear in any way in the process of collecting it?
A. Visually examined it when I was collecting it, and when I was packaging it, you know, to final seal it at the lab, I did.

Q. Did you notice anything unusual in the area of the underwear?
A. There were stains in the crotch area.

From the upcoming movie:Torgersen:
Q. Did you examine the jacket in any way in the process of collecting it?
A. Uh no, I didn't!

Q: HOW ABOUT THIS. DID IT HAVE ANY BLOOD ON IT?
A: I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T.

Q: IF IT WOULD HAVE HAD BLOOD ON IT, YOU WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED, WOULDN'T YOU?
A: OH, YES.

Q: IF ANY OF THE ITEMS HAD BLOOD ON IT, YOU WOULD HAVE SPOTTED IT, WOULDN'T YOU?
A: YES.

Karen:
Q. Did you examine the jacket in any way while it was in your custody?
A. Uh no, I didn't!

Q: HOW ABOUT THIS. DID IT HAVE ANY BLOOD ON IT?
A: I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T.

Q: IF IT WOULD HAVE HAD BLOOD ON IT, YOU WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED, WOULDN'T YOU?
A: OH, YES.

Q: IF ANY OF THE ITEMS HAD BLOOD ON IT, YOU WOULD HAVE SPOTTED IT, WOULDN'T YOU?
A: YES

Soriano from the prelim:
Q. In looking at the jacket -- and did you conduct an examination of the jacket itself?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you do at that point?
A. After performing a visual examination, I then conducted chemical presumptive tests for blood.

...Q. In particular -- and could you tell us, first of all, how did you receive that particular jacket?
A. This jacket was received inside an extra large brown paper bag that was sealed from Karen Lealcala, forensic specialist at the San Diego Police Department crime laboratory.

Q. Did it have a particular item number?
A. At the time, no.

Q. Did you assign it an item number?
A. No, I did not.

Q. Was an item number assigned to that particular item at some point?

MR. FELDMAN: Foundation. Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

6 BY MR. CLARKE:

Q. What was that number?
A. Item 94.
Soriano from the trial:
Q WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IS LOOK AT A LARGE PAPER BAG THAT'S BEEN LABELED COURT'S EXHIBIT 80. AND IF YOU WOULD, FIRST OF ALL, TAKE A LOOK AT THE NOTATIONS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT BAG AND TELL US IF ANY OF THOSE ARE FAMILIAR TO YOU.
A YES. I AM FAMILIAR.

Q WHAT'S FAMILIAR TO YOU?
A THE INITIALS AND DATE AS WELL AS THE CASE NUMBER. BUT MAINLY IN PARTICULAR MY INITIALS.

Q ALL RIGHT. IS THIS THE PARTICULAR LARGE PAPER BAG THAT YOU OBTAINED THE ITEMS OF CLOTHING THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED EARLIER AND THEN I ASSUME ULTIMATELY PLACED THEM BACK INTO?
A YES. THE EXTRA LARGE BROWN PAPER BAG.

Q ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WOULD AT THIS TIME, IF YOU WOULD OPEN THE -- IT APPEARS OPEN AT THIS TIME, BUT CAN YOU OBTAIN THE JACKET THAT YOU LABELED 94D.
A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Soriano from the prelim:
...Q. Did it have a particular item number?
A. At the time, no.

Annette Peer did DNA testing on the stains and determined one of the blood stains belonged to Danielle van Dam.

The San Diego Police nor the dry cleaners didn't have any of Danielle's van Dam's blood to plant.

The ony way the blood stain from Danielle van Dam got on David Westerfield's jacket is when she bleed on it.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED 120-B. THAT APPEARS TO BE A POLAROID OF THE JACKET, IS THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.

MR. FELDMAN: I WOULD ASK TO HAVE MARKED AS DEFENSE' NEXT IN ORDER AN EIGHT-BY-ELEVEN --

THE COURT: COURT EXHIBIT 121.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.

(XEROX COPY OF A PHOTOGRAPH MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 121 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)

BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED 121 AND ASK YOU EXCEPT FOR THE COLOR VARIATIONS IN HYPOTHETICALLY SCANNERS, DOES 121 APPEAR TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE COPY OF 120-B.
A IT WOULD BE A COPY OF THE JACKET, THE COLOR OF THE JACKET.

Q SO INDEPENDENT OF THE COLOR, -- SO 121 SHOWS US WHAT THE JACKET LOOKS LIKE IN AN ENLARGEMENT KIND OF OF YOUR POLAROID, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A IT WOULD BE A REPRESENTATION, YES.

Q NOW, SIR, YOU TOLD US, IF YOU COULD APPROACH 121 AND JUST DRAW IN CIRCLES WHEREVER YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WHERE IT WAS YOU SAW THE STAINS THAT MR. CLARKE HAD YOU SHOW THE JURY THAT WERE REMOVED FROM THE JACKET. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ASKING YOU?
A YES, I DO.

Q PLEASE. ANY COLOR YOU WANT. ANYTHING YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. ANYTHING YOU NEED. WE HAVE LOTS OF PENS OR WHATEVER.
A AGAIN THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION OF WHERE I FOUND THE STAINS. THE FIRST STAIN WHICH WAS LABELED AS 94D-1, I'M GOING TO SHOW AN ARROW WHERE I FOUND IT, BUT WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IT'S COVERED. I WILL SHOW AN ARROW APPROXIMATELY THE LOCATION OF WHERE I FOUND 94D-1.
(Sounds as if the stains weren't visible on the Polaroid. Otherwise Soriano would have said something like this: "This dark area here is one stain. This dark area here is another stain and this dark area here is another stain.")

...THE SECOND STAIN, 94D-2, AGAIN THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION ON THIS PHOTO, WHICH WOULD BE RIGHT AROUND THIS AREA. I WILL MAKE A CIRCLE OF THE APPROXIMATE AREA AND LABEL IT AS 94D-2. AND IF I MAY REFER TO MY NOTES, . . .
(He couldn't tell where the bloodstains were on the photo by looking at the photo? Of course not, the stains didn't appear on the jacket until after the Polaroids were taken.
If the first examination of the jacket was Monday, can one assume photos were taken of the jacket during the initial examination? The blood stains appeared on Wednesday. Why weren't photos taken on Wednesday after the stains had appeared?
Again, provide PROOF there were stains on the jacket before Wednesday, February 13, 2002. You can't because the stains didn't exist. Spatter or transfer? You can't answer that question either.

Isn't it up to the prosecution to provide PROOF that bloodstains existed on the evidence? Why would Feldman want to show the jury there were bloodstains on the jacket? He wouldn't.)

Comment

(Sounds as if the stains weren't visible on the Polaroid. Otherwise Soriano would have said something like this: "This dark area here is one stain. This dark area here is another stain and this dark area here is another stain.")

(He couldn't tell where the bloodstains were on the photo by looking at the photo? Of course not, the stains didn't appear on the jacket until after the Polaroids were taken.
If the first examination of the jacket was Monday, can one assume photos were taken of the jacket during the initial examination? The blood stains appeared on Wednesday. Why weren't photos taken on Wednesday after the stains had appeared?
Again, provide PROOF there were stains on the jacket before Wednesday, February 13, 2002. You can't because the stains didn't exist. Spatter or transfer? You can't answer that question either.

Isn't it up to the prosecution to provide PROOF that bloodstains existed on the evidence? Why would Feldman want to show the jury there were bloodstains on the jacket? He wouldn't.)

The bloodstains weren't visible on the blown up photo of the jacket which was used so the jury could see the evidence while Soriono testified.

The stains are visible on the original polaroid photos which Feldman and Boyce have seen but more importantly the jurors have seen them.

Comment

The bloodstains weren't visible on the blown up photo of the jacket which was used so the jury could see the evidence while Soriono testified.
(Please explain why the stains weren't visible on the blow up. Where did they go? So what you're saying is that SDPD doesn't have the technology or the knowledge to reproduce a photograph accurately?
Are you able to provide us a date when the photographs of the jacket were taken?)

The stains are visible on the original polaroid photos which Feldman and Boyce have seen but more importantly the jurors have seen them.
(Again, how do you know this? Have you seen the original Polaroid photos?
So you expect us to believe that Westerfield, Julie Mills, Sung Choi, Kelly Belom, the person who cleaned the jacket, Terrance Torgersen, Karen LeAlcala and Sean Soriano on his first TWO visual examinations didn't notice the bloodstains on the jacket?
That appears to be a bigger stretch than "Stretch Armstrong".)

Comment

Soriano wasn't the only member of SDPD who found it difficult, if not impossible to photograph blood on items of evidence.
Peer's inability to photograph blood stains:
Q CAN YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BLOODSTAIN WHICH I BELIEVE IS 84 IN THE MOTOR HOME, DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF THAT?
A WELL, I ATTEMPTED TO TAKE A PICTURE OF IT WHEN I BROUGHT THE SAMPLE INTO THE LABORATORY.

Q BEFORE YOU TOOK IT INTO THE LABORATORY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS YOU ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED, DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF IT?
A I DID NOT TAKE A PHOTO, NO.
("Look, it took three days to find and we had to be tipped off on the third day where to look for that darn stain. Now you're asking me if I photographed that stain? What if that stain disappeared when I went to get the camera and a yellow placard to document the evidence properly, then what? Just because Dorie suggests "we photograph everything first, doesn't mean everybody does it that way!!")

Comment

Q. With regard to the areas that you swabbed, could you please tell me what were those areas?
A. The rectum and another tubular structure which either was a vagina or the bladder. Probably the bladder.

Q. And those swabs, did you look at them microscopically?
A. No. I transferred those over to the criminalist from the San Diego Police Department.

Q. And who was that?
A. Savage and Dulaney.

Q. In the ordinary course of business, would that be something that you, sir, as a forensic pathologist just would look at?
A. We normally make one set of slides for ourselves, and then give one set of slides to the law enforcement.

Q. In this case you did not do that?
A. I did not do that.

Q. Why?
A. Because the tissue was so deteriorated we just gave them all to the police.

Q. So all the tissue was --
A. Yes.

Q. Because in your view there wasn't really anything that could -- inferences couldn't be drawn from what was there because it was too deteriorated?
A. Yes.
(How would you know without looking?)